Advanced Search Options
Income Tax - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 144 Records
-
2001 (3) TMI 242
... ... ... ... ..... remaining amount of Rs. 1,50,000, it is the claim of the assessee that the FDRs were purchased by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources. At one stage, the A.O. asked the assessee to produce the copies of the FDRs to prove the purchase of these FDRs on or before the date of receipt of compensation money by the assessee. The assessee could not produce any evidence. Later on it was claimed that these FDRs were re-investment of the old FDRs but the same also could not be proved. Even admitting that this investment of Rs. 1,50,000 was made by Smt. Sureshta Rani from her own sources, the fact remains that the assessee received Rs. 4,74,724 and this amount of Rs. 1,50,000 has not been shown either in cash or otherwise. Therefore, the addition of Rs. 1,50,000 in any case has to be treated as assets of the assessee. I hold accordingly and uphold the, finding of the learned Accountant Member. 7. The matter will go back to the regular Bench for decision according to majority opinion.
-
2001 (3) TMI 241
Business Income ... ... ... ... ..... e 9B of the Income-tax was reasonable. The learned Judicial Member, however, held that the Assessing Officer himself did not strictly interpret the terms and stipulations of agreement which is necessary for working out the minimum guarantee and directed that the same should be restored to his file. 6. In view of the limited difference of opinion, I am of the view that the learned Judicial Member was fully justified in restoring the matter back to the Assessing Officer so that the assessee will have full opportunity to substantiate its claim. Since the order of the CIT(A) stands reversed by both the Members, the only alternative is to allow the Assessing Officer to recompute the minimum guarantee on the basis of the terms and stipulations in the agreement and in doing so, reasonable opportunity should be given to the assessee. I accordingly concur with the view of the learned Judicial Member. 7. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 240
Assessment, Additions To Income ... ... ... ... ..... he prevailing rate of profit from year to year as the turnover during the year is two times of assessment year 1985-86 where the rate of profit was 5.9. It is also seen that in the assessment year 1988-89, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs. 27,694 on account of unvouched purchases. When the matter came up to the Tribunal, the Tribunal (wherein the learned Accountant Member himself is the author) found that the g.p. rate of 6.796 on sale of Rs. 50,74,569 as compared to 5.2 shown on total sales of Rs. 43,70,724 in the case of the assessee in the immediately preceding assessment year is quite reasonable and no, addition was called for. It is also seen that the Assessing Officer himself accepted g.p. rate of 5.8 for assessment year 1991-92. In that view of the matter also, there is no reason for making any addition. I, therefore, concur with the view taken by the learned Judicial Member. 8. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 239
Income Escaping Assessment ... ... ... ... ..... pholding the action of the Assessing Officer in initiating proceedings under section 147(a) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and restoring the matter back with regard to the genuineness of the loan transactions with M/s. Ram Kumar Parshotam Dass to the file of the Assessing Officer by relying on his dissenting order in ITA No. 293/ASR/ 1991 is correct ? In this regard, it is seen that similar issue was decided by me in ITA No. 293/ASR/1991 wherein I have upheld the order of the learned Accountant Member. Consequently the order of the learned Accountant Member for these assessment years also is upheld whereby the action of The Assessing Officer in reopening these four assessment years under setion 147(a) has been approved and the matter has been restored back the file of the Assessing Officer for fresh adjudication in the light of the observation in ITA No. 293 /ASR/ 1991 for assessment year 1981-82. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 238
... ... ... ... ..... ri Ravi Sahdev agreed to share the losses for the minority period, it does not lie on the revenue to object to his personal decision. Even in any case the accounts of the assessee were to be closed at the end of the financial year and profit and loss had to be determined on the basis of the deed of partnership. Automatically Shri Ravi Sahdev will share the loss, if there is any. However, that itself has become academic in view of the fact that the assessee-firm was assessed on a total positive income. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the partnership deed and it will not be justified to refuse registration to the assessee-firm on this very flimsy technical ground. The learned Judicial Member is fully justified in allowing the claim of registration for the year under consideration and continuation of the same for the assessment year 1985-86. I fully concur with the learned Judicial Member. 9. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 237
Rectification Of Mistake ... ... ... ... ..... h could be rectified by him by his subsequent order dated 25-5-1984 ? 2. The facts of the case are fully brought on record by the learned Accountant Member and the Judicial Member. The point of difference was whether the issue is debatable in view of the conflicting decisions of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Hari Ram and of the Madras High Court in the case of V Devaki Ammal 3. At the hearing before me none appeared on behalf of the assessee. After hearing Shri Tarsem Lal, the learned Sr. D.R., I am of the view that this issue is finally settled by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Asstt. CED v. V. Devaki Ammal 1995 212 ITR 395. Since the Hon ble Supreme Court has reversed the decision of the Hon ble Madras High Court, there is no more debate and the view taken by the learned Accountant Member stands confirmed. Accordingly, I concur with the learned Accountant Member on this point. 4. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 236
Commissioner, Powers Of ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner (Appeals) by the appellant. 7. The above specific provisions also fully cover the issue. The learned CIT(Appeals) in this case before reducing the deduction under section 35B of the Act gave proper hearing and opportunity to the assessee. Over and above the Explanation itself gave jurisdiction to the Appellate Authority to consider and decide any matter arising out of the proceedings in which the order a pealed against was passed notwithstanding that such matter was not raised before the Appellate Authority as the case may be. Since the matter regarding deduction under section 35B has been the subject-matter before the learned CIT(Appeals), he was fully justified in resorting to the provisions of section 154 for amending the mistake which is also a statutory mistake beyond doubt. There is, therefore, no infirmity in the order of the learned Accountant Member with which I concur. 8. The matter will now go back to the Division Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 235
Business Loss ... ... ... ... ..... s. In the meanwhile the assessee commuted and accepted a sum of Rs. 1,10,000 during the previous year relevant to the assessment year. In such a case also, the loss cannot be laid to arise during the year. Even if it is to be treated as normal business loss, it can only be considered at the end of the 10 year period when the final instalment is due. Even if it is admitted that the transaction is a normal business transaction, then the loss can only be considered on the basis of the terms of payment as per the Resolution of the Board and that will arise only at the end of the 10 years period. There is, therefore, no reason to allow the claim during the present assessment year. The learned Commissioner was fully justified in directing the Assessing Officer to disallow the claim of Rs. 90,000 by his order under section 263 of the Act. On these facts, I fully agree with the learned Accountant Member. 8. The matter will go back to the regular Bench for passing consequential order.
-
2001 (3) TMI 234
... ... ... ... ..... those credits were set aside by the Tribunal. The learned Departmental Representative could not controvert the submissions made by the learned authorised representative of the assessee. He, however, submitted that the assessee has not shown any reason as to why the information now sought to be filed before the Tribunal could not be furnished before the AO at the time of assessment proceedings. After hearing the parties to the dispute, we find that in almost similar circumstances the Tribunal has set aside the issue to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in the case of Gopichand Nebhumal and Co. sister concern of the assessee, in ITA No. 3933/Ahd/1992. Respectfully following the said decision of the Tribunal, we restore this issue also to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law. 7. In the result, the first three appeals, i.e., ITA Nos. 4502, 4503 and 4504/Ahd/1991 are allowed and ITA No. 3862/Ahd/1992 is partly allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 233
... ... ... ... ..... mpugned orders stand. With this direction, the writ petitions are disposed of. No costs." From the above, it is clear that although in the writ petitions filed by the assessees the levy of interest under s. 139 and 215 was quashed, yet, the Hon'ble High Court gave fifteen days' time to the petitioners to file representations before the concerned officers to be disposed of in accordance with law. In this view of the matter, we restore the question with regard to the levy of interest under s. 139(8)/215 to the file of the AO for fresh adjudication in accordance with law after giving opportunity to the assessee and also taking into consideration the latest decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT & Ors. vs. Ranchi Club Ltd. (2000) 164 CTR (SC) 200 which though given in the context of ss. 234A, 234B and 234C, will have bearing on the question of levy of interest under s. 139/(8)/215 also. 25. In the result, all the appeals are partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 232
Alleged Bogus Purchases ... ... ... ... ..... and there is no material on record to show that price of goods was inflated. All these questions are required to be examined in accordance with law. Therefore, setting aside of penalty order is fully justified on facts and in the circumstances of the case. In the light of the above decision, I fully agree with the view of the learned A.M. His order of remand for reconsideration of issue is fully justified. The matter will now go to the regular Bench which heard the appeal for passing an order as per the majority view. T.N. CHOPRA, A.M. 29th March, 2001 In conformity with the opinion of the Hon ble Vice-President, dt. 17th Jan., 2001, we restore the matter relating to leviability or non-leviability of penalty in question to the file of the AO. He is directed to decide the matter afresh in the light of findings of fact given by the Tribunal in the quantum appeal of the assessee and in accordance with law. 2. In the result, assessee s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
-
2001 (3) TMI 231
Failure To Get Accounts Audited ... ... ... ... ..... dabad Bench B of the Tribunal wherein it has been held that there is no justification for levy of penalty under s. 271B in the facts and circumstances of the case. The assessee could entertain bona fide belief that the turnover of dealing in shares made on behalf of various buyers and sellers of shares through the assessee in the capacity of sub-broker is not includible for determining the applicability of s. 44AB. Such bona fide belief was fortified by the fact that in several past assessments and the assessments for subsequent years, the AO himself has not initiated any penalty proceedings under s. 271B. Such bona fide belief constitutes a reasonable cause within the meaning of s. 273B which justifies the cancellation of penalty levied in the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case. Accordingly, the AO was directed to cancel the penalty. Most respectfully following the same, we direct the AO to cancel the penalty under s. 271B. 4. In the result, the appeal is allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 230
... ... ... ... ..... ating to registration of the firm and the finding of the Assessing Officer that the remaining partners were benamidars of Shri H.J. Patel. 2. As per order sheet entry dated 6-1-2000 signed by the Registrar, Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, it is revealed that the Hon ble President nominated Shri Vimal Gandhi, the Hon ble Vice-President as Third Member to hear and decide the aforesaid point. 3. The Hon ble Vice-President has expressed his opinion on the points of difference between the learned Brothers vide opinion dated 23rd February, 2001. The Hon ble Vice-President has held that the partnership firm has satisfied all the conditions of the partnership and requirements of getting registration under the Income-tax Act. The firm was held to be genuine firm and is entitled to grant of registration. The learned Vice-President agreed with the view expressed by the learned Accountant Member on the points of difference. 4. In the result, Revenue s appeal is treated as partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 229
Deemed Dividend ... ... ... ... ..... o occasion to consider the issue of levy of capital gains under section 45 as a result of reduction of share capitals since he came to the conclusion that accumulated profits possessed by the company exceeded the distribution made to the shareholders on reduction of share capital. While reversing the conclusion of the Assessing Officer and deleting the addition on account of dividend under section 2(22)(a) the CIT(A) did not apply his mind to the issue of levy of capital gains under section 45 particularly since the distribution made by Alkapuri on reduction of share capital has been treated as transfer by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the various decisions cited above. We would in the circumstances set aside the issue of levy of capital gains to the file of the Assessing Officer with the direction that the issue of levy of capital gains may be re-examined in the light of the aforesaid discussion and observations. 49. In the result, the appeal of the revenue is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 228
Business Expenditure, Allowable As ... ... ... ... ..... lowed. The question as to the year in which a deduction is allowable may be material when the rate of tax chargeable on the assessee in two different years is different but in the case of income of a company, tax is attracted at a uniform rate, and whether the deduction in respect of bonus was granted in the assessment year 1952-53 or in the assessment year corresponding to the accounting year 1952, that is in the assessment year 1953-54, should be a matter of no consequence to the Department and one should have thought that the Department would not fritter away its energies in fighting matters of this kind. But, obviously, judging from the references that come up to us every now and then, the Department appears to delight in raising points of the character which do not affect the taxability of the assessee or the tax that the Department is likely to collect from him whether in one year or the other. 17. to 22. These paras are not reproduced here as they involve minor issues.
-
2001 (3) TMI 227
Income From House Property, Chargeable As ... ... ... ... ..... nt given to bank by the assessee was factually wrong. It is also not the case of the assessee that the stock register maintained by him was found to be correct on verification by the other authorities. Accordingly, we are of the view that lower authorities were justified in making/confirming the addition in principle. 10. However, we find merit in the alternate contention of the counsel for the assessee that only a peak amount should be assessed. It appears from the Annexure to the assessment order that the A.O. has added all the figures of difference relating to various months for making the addition. In our considered opinion, this approach is erroneous. It is only the peak amount which can be assessed. From the perusal of stock statement, we find that the peak amount is of Rs. 64,960 which would cover the entire difference. Accordingly, the order of CIT(A) is modified and the addition is restricted to Rs. 64,960. 11. In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed.
-
2001 (3) TMI 92
Reference, Question Of Law, Assessing Officer ... ... ... ... ..... der under challenge should be set aside and the Tribunal directed to refer to the High Court for its consideration a question or questions reframed to bring out the precise point of law involved, after drafting an appropriate statement of case. For the purposes of reframing the questions, the Tribunal shall give notice to both the parties. The civil appeal is allowed accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2001 (3) TMI 89
Legislative Powers, State Legislature, Agricultural Income Tax, Interpretation OF STATUTES, Legislative Powers
-
2001 (3) TMI 88
Assessment, Revision ... ... ... ... ..... te that if it is accepted, as contended by Mr. Lodha, that notwithstanding the setting aside of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, the order still remains operative and live and binds the Assessing Officer to give effect thereto within the period prescribed under section 155(2A), if the matter is sub judice then such limitation for making assessment in pursuance of the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, then the said period has already expired. However, I refrain from making any comments on the question of limitation for completing the proceedings in case the Revenue becomes successful in the pending proceedings ultimately and the treatment of the period during which the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax remained inoperative because of its setting aside. Accordingly, this petition is allowed and the respondents are restrained from continuing with the proceedings in pursuance of the order passed by the Commissioner under section 263 on February 20, 1998.
-
2001 (3) TMI 87
Advance Tax, Refund, Interest ... ... ... ... ..... ter, the right to receive the interest accrued to the assessee only on October 24, 1988, when the Assessing Officer gave effect to the order of the first appellate authority dated December 11, 1987, by which the assessee s appeal came to be allowed. Therefore, the amending Act, 1984, would apply to this case. Lastly, a bare reading of section 214(1A) indicates that the said section 214(1A) would apply to all cases where interest becomes payable as a result of an order under section 147 or section 154 or section 250 or section 254 or section 262 or section 263. Therefore, the Taxation Laws (Amendment) Act, 1984, is applicable to this case and we do not find any merit in the contention of the Department that the said amending Act is not applicable to the facts of this case. Accordingly, the above question is answered in the affirmative, i.e., in favour of. the assessee and against the Department. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed with no order as to costs. C. C. expedited.
........
|